User 463088
Banned
Don't forget that Democrats can certainly make gains downballot. Texas is gerrymandered, but if the state is moving in one direction, that gerrymander will start to crack.
GA and AZ are better investments, but Clinton is swimming in cash and Battleground Texas was a fundraising juggernaut (they just picked like, the worst possible year to make a splash). Making a token investment there might not be a bad idea, especially if they're taking states like PA, CO and VA off the board. The way you make states competitive is by actually competing. We might not be talking about a purple Georgia if Obama hasn't laid that foundation in 2008.
This is basically the point I'm trying (probably not successfully) to argue. I don't fault Obama for not moving on Georgia in 2008 until way too late, simply because the election didn't break his way as early as it is for Hillary.
Something I'd add to what you were saying...publicly investing in a state has narrative benefit. We see a lot of posters in OT threads talk about how they're in Georgia and, by god, their vote might matter this time. It's a mindshare argument. Even if you're not uber competitive, acting like you are, investing in GOTV and registrations (which helps downballot candidates) is a smart investment. A small, targeted ad buy could help with that too. It also gives you the chance to own a media cycle. It's a talking point, if nothing else.
Like a few networks may pick up on the PPP poll. To make sure they do, announce you're investing in the state. Get a surrogate to go on the record saying you're making a play for it. It helps raise money, and it helps to cement the idea that your map is expanding while your opponent is crashing and burning.